Maybe, just maybe, that is because there's no such thing as "working class" anymore ?
The labour party no longer represents the people it was set up to represent - the working poor.
I think this needs unpicking because I suspect it is these very notions that cause a lot of confusion within the modern Labour party, and have led to its current predicament.
There is a lot of propaganda out there about industrial Britain. While, yes, early Labour represented the working "poor", it also represented the working "fairly sorted out" as well (it was also, interestingly, anti-vaccination). We have to remember that middle-class back then meant someone with job that required traditional university learning (law, church etc) and/or ownership of property or significant capital, and "not aristocracy".
So a skilled engineer or stone mason who rented his house would be "working class". A spinning floor foreman with responsibility for twenty highly-expensive industrial looms and sixty workers would be "working class" (today he would be managerial grade).
As an illustrative example of this aspect ... prior to Lloyd George's national insurance scheme, a significant percentage of the working class had unemployment and ill-health insurance through their membership of friendly and oddfellows' societies. In fact, this section of the working class didn't approve of Lloyd George's legislation because they distrusted the state and did not believe it would provide the same sort of insurance coverage they currently had: a position that, you could argue, was eerily prescient. The legislation, in their eyes, increased their "taxation", took away control from them, and gave little back compared to the cover they could expect from their society schemes. That is why NI was such a hard sell for Lloyd George -- because these working class people didn't want it.
So when we talk about the working "poor" in this period, we have to be careful about who we mean. The majority of the working class were people who had significant skills, knowledge and experience. Many may not have had a formal education above parochial level, but many were skilled industrial workers (you had to be intelligent to work an industrial loom; otherwise, you'd lose your fingers) and took advantage of the expansion of libraries and educational societies to better themselves. When you look at industrial working class "poverty" around this time, you are really looking at situations where a family unit had a secondary factor: alcoholism, parental abandonment, ill-health, parental death, immigration status, domestic violence, parental industrial injury, old age, too many children under age 14 etc.
Industrial working class culture did go some way to trying to negate these dangers. The average age for a working class woman to marry in 19th century industrial Manchester was actually 27 -- because that is how long it took for a working class man to save enough to start his own household.
Ultimately, it was these people that formed the early Labour movement -- and they brought their perspectives and attitudes with them. Labour was a party to represent them, not the founding of a patronising Victorian middle-class charity for the "poor and impoverished", which, weirdly, now seems to be an undertone that runs through the modern Labour party.
This is also why Thatcher won so many votes from the working class. Now hold onto your hats, because I am about to write something that will startle you. Margaret Thatcher was not a Tory. She might have been a member of the Conservative party, and the Conservative leader, and a Conservative PM, but her political attitude was one that could be more accurately described as Manchester Liberalism -- and it is this perspective, that harmonises so well with the Methodist perspective, that ran and still runs through the heart of many traditional working-class voters. And Manchester Liberalism is pretty much a perfect description for the position that UKIP espouses, so no wonder they are harvesting working class votes like a combine harvester on acid.
We can no longer particularly see this aspect of "the old Labour vote" because it is rarely reflected in the media and when it is, it is usually framed by some sort of sneer -- usually from someone affiliated to the Labour party, unfortunately.
This is why I say it is unlikely Labour can repair itself -- because it doesn't even realise where its most serious injuries are. It's pulling itself apart over arguments about whether to bandage its leg or its arm, while repeated stabbing itself in the heart.